My proposal, then, is that knowledge itself is constituted by having a true belief that Reason is adopting a certain attitude towards (the knowledge attitude). That analysis leaves open when and where Reason will adopt that attitude towards a true belief that one is holding. — Bartricks
Why does one have to have an awareness that something is knowledge for it to be knowledge? — Pantagruel
Both with this and with truth in the other thread, you seem willing to accept problematic and probabilistic "definitions." — tim wood
But they're in no way understandings of the thing itself. — tim wood
Tell us, then, are you being practical or a philosopher? — tim wood
Sometimes someone can know something - that is, can have a justified true belief - without knowing that their belief is justified. — Bartricks
having a true belief that Reason is adopting a certain attitude towards (the knowledge attitude). — Bartricks
I am not offering definitions. I know full well that definitions do not provide understanding. I am proposing that knowledge consists of an attitude. That's a thesis for exploration, not something I am certain about. And it is not a definition. — Bartricks
Ok but this
Sometimes someone can know something - that is, can have a justified true belief - without knowing that their belief is justified. — Bartricks
and this
having a true belief that Reason is adopting a certain attitude towards (the knowledge attitude). — Bartricks
seem to be in disagreement? — Pantagruel
Here is my proposal: for a belief to qualify as knowledge is for Reason to be adopting a certain attitude towards your possession of it. Sometimes the presence of luck will mean she does not adopt that attitude towards your possession of it; sometimes it will not. — Bartricks
It is traditional at exam time for students to leave offerings to the goddess with a note asking for good luck, or to repent for accidentally breaking any of the college's numerous other traditions. — Athena
You have said this is inconsistent with knowledge being made of an attitude that Reason is adopting towards a true belief someone is holding. — Bartricks
Why doesn't that person's justified true belief qualify as knowledge? — Bartricks
The topic here is "what is knowledge?" There is already broad agreement that whatever else knowledge involves, it involves having a true belief and a justification for it. But there are cases where these elements are present yet the person does not possess knowledge. — Bartricks
Do you know what I mean by metacognitive? — Pantagruel
An attitude towards a belief would be cognition about a belief. — Pantagruel
Ok but this
Sometimes someone can know something - that is, can have a justified true belief - without knowing that their belief is justified. — Bartricks
and this
having a true belief that Reason is adopting a certain attitude towards (the knowledge attitude). — Bartricks
seem to be in disagreement? — Pantagruel
'Knowledge' is a word applied to a state of confidence, shared or individual, that an event, or sequence of events.. was/is/will be.. the case. Words like 'belief', 'truth' and 'justification' are merely negotiable aspects of that state of confidence. — fresco
I can have a justified true belief - that is, a belief that I have acquired in a manner that Reason approves of - without realising that Reason approves of it. — Bartricks
I don't see how you can define knowledge in such a way and then say that a person fits that definition yet doesn't possess knowledge. It's like saying, "It walks, talks and acts like a duck, but isn't a duck". — Harry Hindu
Why doesn't the person have knowledge if they fit all the requirements? Find what is missing and make it part of the definition. — Harry Hindu
So then why is reason adopting an attitude towards that belief? (your words). — Pantagruel
Are you reifying, deifying or otherwise personifying reason? — Pantagruel
But that feeling - the knowledge feeling - does make a belief into knowledge when Reason has it towards a belief. That's what I am proposing, anyway. — Bartricks
How would we distinguish between those beliefs Reason approves of and those she does not?
Or to put it another way, why does Reason approve of the beliefs she does? — Andrew M
The topic here is "what is knowledge?" There is already broad agreement that whatever else knowledge involves, it involves having a true belief and a justification for it. But there are cases where these elements are present yet the person does not possess knowledge.
— Bartricks
I don't see how you can define knowledge in such a way and then say that a person fits that definition yet doesn't possess knowledge. It's like saying, "It walks, talks and acts like a duck, but isn't a duck". — Harry Hindu
Knowledge should work all of the time, not some of the time. — ovdtogt
Why doesn't that person's justified true belief qualify as knowledge? I — Bartricks
Just for the sake of argument, time is an abstract concept. Time is not a tangible reality. That is, it is not a thing that is perceptible by touch, therefore it can not be known. It can be believed by an individual or the whole state in that time zone can believe that it is three o'clock, as it can be believed the earth is flat, but if I understand the OP argument, believing something is not exactly knowing it. Experience is a vital part of knowing, and if it is not perceptible by touch, it can not be experienced. — Athena
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.